Peter Dale Scott The Mexico City Tape And Photographs

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Assuming that "they" knew who it was in the photo, it does not follow that the person in the photo had anything to do with Oswald or the assassination.

Hoover was simply wrong that the person used Oswald's name; he either got bad information (apparently the photo had the name "Oswald" written on it) or misunderstood what he was told. As he said in the call: it's "confusing" and it "appears": he wasn't sure what he had. How would Hoover know what that person in the photo told the Soviets? What his name was? Hoover told LBJ in that early period a number of wrong things, e.g., that Oswald was arrested in a shootout at the Texas Theater and that a police officer was killed. It was the type of misinformation that was all around during those early stages; the Mexico City matter was near the top (Hoover was told that tapes of phone calls were sent to Dallas; wrong, there were no tapes sent).

Is the theory then that this person - who clearly isn't Oswald - impersonated Oswald AND THE SOVIETS never revealed it? They kept it quiet? They fell for it? They didn't figure out that the person in the photo wasn't Oswald? But that's wrong: the Soviets themselves said it was Oswald who went there and that the person in the photo didn't identify himself as Oswald but was another person. 

Or is the theory that Hoover and others manufactured this visit to Mexico City and then the CIA releases this photo of their impersonator and then Hoover ON TAPE exposes the impersonation? And the tape is released?

So the theories are (1) the Soviets knew about this impersonation and kept it quiet and that (2) Hoover knew about the impersonation and reveals it on a phone call that is released? Is this what conspiracists are reduced to arguing?

Again, the three KGB agents/Soviet Embassy officials who met Oswald were shown the photo that Hoover mentioned. They all said the man never said he was Oswald. In fact, Oleg Nechiporenko said the man was a US Air Force sergeant who visited the Embassy and offered secrets to them. It wasn't Oswald.

Shorter: Hoover told LBJ all sorts of things that were wrong. This was one of them.

Here they are at the 1:10 mark interviewed in the PBS show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Once again, they all said the man they met was the real Oswald and not the man in the photo who supposedly said he was Oswald.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The day after the assassination the then head of the KGB - Vladimir Semichastny - sent a report to the Politburo on Oswald. In that report he told the Soviet officials that Oswald visited the Embassy. It wasn't an impostor. So were the Soviets fooled by this person who clearly wasn't Oswald? Is this the theory?

Nechiporenko quotes from the report here:

[Steve M. Galbraith]

LBJ:  Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?

Hoover:  No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the
photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name.  That picture and the tape
do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance.  In other words, it appears that there is a
second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.

(LBJ Library, transcript from the November 23 call from Hoover to Lyndon Johnson)

**********************
They knew exactly who it was...

https://jfk.boards.net/post/3079

So, your explanation is: They staged an Oswald visit to the Soviet Embassy using this impersonator (who of course looks nothing like Oswald; is this the best they can do?) and the CIA, the people involved in this staged operation, take a photo of this impersonator (who again looks nothing like Oswald), and then they release this photo to others.

Then Hoover, also involved in this frame-up, on a phone call to LBJ exposes this impersonation. The one they are trying pull off.

So again your idea seems to be that they (Hoover et al.) knew who the person was - after all, they sent him - and they knew it was a staged incident to connect Oswald to the Soviets and after all of this they, the people staging this, both release a photo of the impersonator and also a transcript of a call: both of which exposes their plan?

I won't even ask why the Soviets didn't expose this impersonation, why they didn't reveal it as part of the CIA's murder of JFK and attempt to blame them for it.

Is this your explanation? You think this makes sense?

[Richard Smith]

Hoover was wrong that the person used Oswald's name; he either got bad information or misunderstood it. How would Hoover know what that person in the photo told the Soviets that he met? What his name was? Hoover told LBJ in that early period lots of wrong things, e.g., that Oswald was arrested in a shootout at the Texas Theater and that a police officer was killed. It was the type of misinformation that was all around during those early stages.

Is one theory that this person - who clearly isn't Oswald - impersonated Oswald AND THE SOVIETS never revealed it? They kept it quiet? They fell for it? But that's wrong: the Soviets themselves said it was Oswald who went there and that the person in the photo didn't identify himself as Oswald but was another person. 

Or is the theory that Hoover and others manufactured this visit to Mexico City and then Hoover ON TAPE exposes the impersonation? And the tape is released?

So the theories are (1) the Soviets knew about this impersonation and kept it quiet and that (2) Hoover knew about the impersonation and reveals it on a phone call that is released? Is this what conspiracists are reduced to arguing?

Again, the three KGB agents/Soviet Embassy officials who met Oswald were shown the photo that Hoover mentioned. They all said the man never said he was Oswald. In fact, Oleg Nechiporenko said the man was a US Air Force sergeant who visited the Embassy and offered secrets to them. It wasn't Oswald.

Shorter: Hoover told LBJ all sorts of things that were wrong. This was one of them.

Here they are at the 1:10 mark interviewed in the PBS show "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Once again, they all said the man was not the man who said he was Oswald.

It's hopeless.  Many CTers claim Hoover was behind the assassination directing the conspiracy and cover up.  But without missing a beat he is cited as the source of skepticism of Oswald's guilt.   Imagine Hoover pulling strings to frame Oswald, exposing himself to disgrace and prison, but then entertaining a conspiracy.  CTers cling to pedantic bits of evidence and make no effort to think about the implications of their own claims having any validity.   It is just so. Here are a couple of questions.

WHY FAKE OSWALD'S PRESENCE IN MEXICO CITY?  How would that advance the cause of the conspirators to frame him for the assassination?  Particularly if all the blame is to be placed on Oswald as CTers allege and no apparent effort is made by the most commonly named conspirators like the WC, LBJ, or Hoover to link the crime to Cuba or Russia.   In fact, CTers often criticize the WC for placing all the blame on Oswald and ignoring evidence of the possible involvement of others to avoid WWIII.  Oswald was already a known political kook for his defection to the USSR.  There is no need to fake his presence in Mexico City to further promote any such narrative. 

HOW DO THE CONSPIRATORS ENSURE THAT OSWALD ISN'T IN THE PRESENCE OF ANYONE DURING THIS TIMEFRAME WHO COULD PLACE HIM ELSEWHERE?  That could only be done if Oswald was cooperating with the conspirators.  In which case, the obvious solution to their problem is to - wait for it - send Oswald to Mexico City.  There is no conceivable scenario where a fake Oswald is sent to Mexico City and the real Oswald continues to go about his life in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while being implicated in the assassination.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

It's hopeless.  Many CTers claim Hoover was behind the assassination directing the conspiracy and cover up.  But without missing a beat he is cited as the source of skepticism of Oswald's guilt.   Imagine Hoover pulling strings to frame Oswald, exposing himself to disgrace and prison, but then entertaining a conspiracy.  CTers cling to pedantic bits of evidence and make no effort to think about the implications of their own claims having any validity.   It is just so. Here are a couple of questions.

WHY FAKE OSWALD'S PRESENCE IN MEXICO CITY?  How would that advance the cause of the conspirators to frame him for the assassination?  Particularly if all the blame is to be placed on Oswald as CTers allege and no apparent effort is made by the most commonly named conspirators like the WC, LBJ, or Hoover to link the crime to Cuba or Russia.   In fact, CTers often criticize the WC for placing all the blame on Oswald and ignoring evidence of the possible involvement of others to avoid WWIII.  Oswald was already a known political kook for his defection to the USSR.  There is no need to fake his presence in Mexico City to further promote any such narrative. 

HOW DO THE CONSPIRATORS ENSURE THAT OSWALD ISN'T IN THE PRESENCE OF ANYONE DURING THIS TIMEFRAME WHO COULD PLACE HIM ELSEWHERE?  That could only be done if Oswald was cooperating with the conspirators.  In which case, the obvious solution to their problem is to - wait for it - send Oswald to Mexico City.  There is no conceivable scenario where a fake Oswald is sent to Mexico City and the real Oswald continues to go about his life in Mr. Magoo-like bliss while being implicated in the assassination.

I've read that the conspiracy believers who say he was impersonated argue that this staging of Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy was a sort of poison pill that was done to limit any investigation into the assassination; that Warren was told by LBJ that WWIII could result and that he shouldn't look into areas like Mexico City since it could lead to Armageddon.

So it wasn't intended to frame him for the assassination but was intended to connect the Soviets to it. And by doing so limit the investigation - essentially stop it - out of fear of war with Moscow. Of course the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991 and many of the WC people were alive at that time. There was no chance of war since the USSR didn't exist. Why not reveal that part of the coverup?

Dan Hardway worked for the HSCA and the so-called "Lopez Report" which investigated the Mexico City matter. He says Oswald DID go to Mexico City but was ordered to do so by his control agent David Atlee Phillips. Yes, Oswald was a CIA asset. This was done by the real murderers - dramatic pause, *THE CIA* - in order to connect the assassination to Moscow and Havana. And in turn, as I mention above, it was done to limit the investigation since it would lead to the Soviets and a possible war. So the actual assassins of JFK were able to escape discovery because the investigation was limited due to Oswald's visit to the Soviet Embassy. Whew.

In any case, I still want to know why they would do this, send an impersonator to connect Oswald with the Cubans and Soviet, and then release their photo of the supposed impersonator they sent and thus expose their very own plan. Then Hoover, on a phone call with LBJ, exposes the plan as well? Furthermore, how could they get the Soviets - who said at that time and over the next decades - that it *was* Oswald that they met to go along with it? Does everything have be understood through a conspiracy worldview, a conspiracy perspective? Is this the only way conspiracy advocates can see things?

Anyway, some (many?) conspiracists think the Zapruder film was faked, the backyard photos were faked, the autopsy x-rays and photos faked: would they really accept a photo of Oswald at the Soviet Embassy from the CIA? And if *they* faked all of this other evidence why didn't they fake a photo of Oswald in MC? It's illogical and contradictory.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here is Oleg Nechiporenko, one of the three KGB agents/Embassy officials who say they met Oswald at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, describing what happened. He was interviewed in Moscow by the late Edward Epstein. Nechiporenko never defected; he stayed in Russia and went to work for the Russian intelligence service the FSB.

If you don't believe his account, if you believe Nechiporenko et al were lying in order to sell a book or gain favor with the West or whatever, then you believe that in actuality that Nechiporenko originally told the KGB and Moscow about this impersonation, that it wasn't the real Oswald they met, that it was the man in the photo. And after informing Moscow of this deception the Soviets themselves kept this revelation quiet for the next 30 years. The Soviets didn't reveal it? Is that remotely possible?

[Jon Banks]

Here’s what’s always flummoxed me on Mexico City. Despite David Attlee Phillips’ claims to the contrary, we know from the HSCA that the CIA cameras in MC were functional during the period of Oswald’s alleged visits to the Cuban Embassy, from which we can infer that there would exist pics of LHO in Mexico City, either outside the Cuban Consulate or Embassy, or both. Given the intelligence community’s rush to frame Oswald in the aftermath of Dallas, why didn’t we see pics of Oswald in MC plastered all over the front pages of newspapers on 11/23/63?

There can only be one answer………..Oswald was never there.

Gradually, I'm moving towards the same conclusion.

Due to the strong indications that someone was impersonating Oswald in MC and the lack of photographic evidence that he was there...

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Here (again) is Oswald's letter - typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter (the FBI matched it) - discussing his visit to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He mailed this to the Soviet Embassy in Washington. Oswald's signature is on the letter. And the envelope had his handwriting on it. A draft copy - in his hand writing - of this letter discussing the visits was found. So we have Oswald *himself* revealing the visits. Marina said he went there, Cuban personnel said it was him, his photo and handwriting on the visa application were found and on and on and on.

So we have physical, eyewitness and circumstantial evidence that Oswald went to MC but because the CIA didn't photograph him entering the Cuban consulate that proves he didn't go there? But he did go to the Soviet Embassy? Does that make any sense? I would suggest that if you don't believe all of this other evidence, that you think it was manufactured you likely wouldn't accept a CIA photo of Oswald either. And one more: the Soviets themselves said he went there, they interviewed him and he discussed his visit to the Cuban consulate with them. Did they lie too?